So if language is primarily a tool for communication, which tools are we using for thought?
Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
301–310 of 404 posts
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#302There was thought before there was language. Anyone who doubts that is not thinking.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#303Let's do a mental experiment: Put 2 year old Einstein on a remote island, all alone, and come back 30 years later. Assume he survives. Will he impress you with his insights? They say we don't use language for thought, but language informs our strategies and choices, and collective experience is essential for progress. We only add small increments of insight from our own experiences to the pool, but the experience cap…
I know your answer is supposed to be no, but I think there's a good chance the answer would be yes. There's a seemingly endless amount that can be learned about basically anything. And surviving for 30 years on an isolated island is going to involve developing a wide range of skills and masteries ranging from healthcare, seasonal prediction, animal habits, hunting, medicine, shelter construction, and much more. It'd…
[deleted]
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
That just sounds so different to how I solve math problems. I was naturally good at maths, but it was always from monologue kind of bruteforcing different solutions until one of them seemed to work. I guess it might be a reason also why I find LLMs really exciting since I feel like if I can do it, LLM should be able to do it. I don't feel like I am doing anything special. I always had problem with trusting my intuiti…
> I first remind myself of the strategy to do it, which is first I will do 60 x 60. Then it is 3600, then I add 2 x 60, 3720, and then there is 2 x 62 left, but I have to keep reminding myself occasionally what the last numbers were, that initial multiplication was 62 x 62, then I got 3720, and now I have to add 124... okay lets go 3820, 24 left, now 3844. Of course it is easier to remember as I am typing this, but i…
Might sound weird but does the look of the operator matter? Say × vs x vs • vs *, I would assume it doesn't but I'm curious if there's a visual change, for lack of a better term.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I first remind myself of the strategy to do it, which is first I will do 60 x 60. Then it is 3600, then I add 2 x 60, 3720, and then there is 2 x 62 left, but I have to keep reminding myself occasionally what the last numbers were, that initial multiplication was 62 x 62, then I got 3720, and now I have to add 124... okay lets go 3820, 24 left, now 3844. Of course it is easier to remember as I am typing this, but i…
If you can or ever were able to do this in 2 seconds that is unimaginable to me. Not in a doubting way, I just have no idea how I could do it in 2 seconds. It would take me 20 to 30s and at least. But most people wouldn't even try to multiply this top of their head. Also this multiplying of two digit numbers I was never taught, I just came to a strategy that I explained with my thoughts. And I used to do these for fu…
> is something like 68 x 68
I got to 4624 in 8 seconds on that now, and I haven't done significant amounts of mental math in over a decade. The 60x8 etc took a couple of seconds each but other than that it just happens automatically. A decade ago each of those would take a fraction of a second and it takes about the same time to calculate as to write it, I tend to calculate the numbers left to right instead of right to left as you are taught since you write it left to right, also more useful when calculating approximations since I just do what I normally do but stop earlier.
> Not in a doubting way, I just have no idea how I could do it in 2 seconds
Words are just slow. I never did math with words, so arithmetics is fast, and so is all the other things you learn in a math degree. I think word based processing in math is a big reason people have such a tough time with it, it really makes it much harder to think, like you are bogged down in a fog instead of up and free and agile with clear sight of everything.
Maybe it was easier for people to get past this stage when calculators were less prevalent. Calculators lets people get away with keeping their arduous word based math instead of just internalizing the concepts.
> What if you were to have to do something more difficult e.g. 3 digits multiplication or 4?
When on tests I write down some intermediate values. I am not a human calculator, I am just fast at math reasoning and being relatively fast at arithmetic's comes for free from that.
I did some physics tests without a calculator, you can approximate all those special functions using regular math logic you learn in high school. I did still ace the test, it isn't that hard once you have internalized it all.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I first remind myself of the strategy to do it, which is first I will do 60 x 60. Then it is 3600, then I add 2 x 60, 3720, and then there is 2 x 62 left, but I have to keep reminding myself occasionally what the last numbers were, that initial multiplication was 62 x 62, then I got 3720, and now I have to add 124... okay lets go 3820, 24 left, now 3844. Of course it is easier to remember as I am typing this, but i…
Might sound weird but does the look of the operator matter? Say × vs x vs • vs *, I would assume it doesn't but I'm curious if there's a visual change, for lack of a better term.
No, I translate that to the same concept in my head and then I do it.
Edit: Thinking more about it, in my head the numbers are numbers, but the operators are invisible, not sure what to call it but I don't think of the multiplication operator as anything tangible, I just know it is a multiplication of the two numbers.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is the key part of my argument: in sufficient detail such that another master or a robot could create David, (implying) in the exact same style as the masterpiece, without seeing or touching the artifact itself (because that would not be just verbal language anymore).
Isn't that what CNC machines do? Or even 3D modeling software, which then gets 3D printed? Is that not creating things, potentially as complicated as David, using language? I know CNC machines use G-Code. I think the only limiting factor we have on that is we don't yet have a robot that can chisel marble to create a carbon copy of such sculptures, but we can otherwise do it with other materials.
In the context of the original article in which this whole discussion takes place, I assume we are talking about verbal, natural language. Specifying every little detail would make my comments sound like legalese.
To my understanding, this is not a type of natural language the paper discusses:
N10 G21 ; Set units to millimeters
N20 G17 ; Select XY plane
N30 G90 ; Absolute positioning
N40 G00 Z5.0 ; Raise Z axis to 5.0 mmRe: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did Michelangelo create his masterpieces? Can one describe the process using any verbal language in sufficient detail such that another master or a robot could create David? That's an example of thought processes beyond language. I suspect the same happens in many other fields. Even in an abstract field like mathematics, intuition often forms in the mind before verbal description or articulation.
> Can one describe the process using any verbal language in sufficient detail such that another master or a robot could create David? Maybe I don't understand why you couldn't use verbal language to instruct a CNC machine?
In the context of the original article in which this whole discussion takes place, I assume we are talking about verbal, natural language. Specifying every little detail would make my comments sound like legalese.
To my understanding, this is not a type of natural language the paper discusses:
N10 G21 ; Set units to millimeters
N20 G17 ; Select XY plane
N30 G90 ; Absolute positioning
N40 G00 Z5.0 ; Raise Z axis to 5.0 mmRe: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#309In contrast to Noam Chomsky who was pushing the idea that language was developed primarily for thought [0]. I don't know how much weight should be given to this paper but, if true, directly contradicts Chomsky. Here is one quote from Chomsky: """ ... One general assumption about language, almost a dogma in philosophy ... [and] linguistics ... is that language is primarily a means of communication ... probably that's…
To be fair to Chomsky, the historical context is that he was pushing against a particular dogma of his time. So later on Chomsky evolved his own position and came up with i-language/e-language for internal vs external language and so forth. And a few years ago he was recommending a new cognitive science textbook where the first chapter begins with Claude Shannon's communication/information theory.
Interesting. Do you have a link to some of his statements to that effect?
I have a lot of respect for Chomsky but sometimes it does seem he's lazy in giving a well balanced argument for the things he advocates for. The above clip I shared is him stating unequivocally that standard dogma is wrong. Now you're telling me he's walked back his position and arguing for something more nuanced.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd definitely say all language use must rely on recursion, you're just highlighting our tendency to halt the pronunciation of it early at arbitrary points due to linguistic norms. Like, AFAIU this was Chomsky's whole impetus, and I really don't think anyone has answered better than he: how can a finite system compute linguistic meaning in finite time, otherwise? I'd guess the "natural language" answer would be along…
I think Chomsky is a linguist really more famous and respected among non-linguists than actual experts in the field. I don't think modern linguistics - particularly applied linguistics for example in the area of language acquisition - references Chomsky. His theories are unfalsifiable and un-empirical and thus, for me, unscientific. This discussion is typical. Chomsky's definition of "recursion" - like that of a "lan…
Well he calls that whole field “not real linguistics” basically, so I think it makes sense that they wouldn’t accept his theories! Whatever you call the two things, I feel like
1. “what are the neural structures and programs that produce language” and
2. “what languages have humans used to communicate in specific historical contexts, and how do these practices relate to each other?”
…are both worthwhile questions, and they obviously inform each other. But don’t you see where he’s coming from by calling the former “the biological study of language production” and the latter “the anthropological study of language usage”?
I’m interested to see you usually loose points! That brings me joy as a (non-academic, self-employed) chomskian, even tho it’s obviously infuriating people are still downvoting based on differences of opinion in 2024. My view is the opposite of yours: almost every corner of the internet has dismissed Chomsky as unempirical and also disproven by recent cross-cultural studies (??) and LLMs, from Hinton to the Stanford Phil page on linguistics to the Wiki and Britannica articles. I frequently see anti-Chomsky papers on HN and in my lit reviews from the connectionist/positivist camp in general, but that’s obviously a terribly biased survey. Perhaps we all have confirmation bias to see our “team” as the underdogs…
In terms of debating specifics (no pressure to respond, your outlook is very valid):
He’s still being cited a lot (160K in 2023 compared to recent peak of 210K in 2017), but of course that could all be refutations and/or non-linguists. Ultimately I absolutely agree that applied linguistics has far more practitioners in the US (the “west”?) today, but I don’t think that’s necessarily any kind of refutation of the merits of theoretical work.
I’m currently engaged in implementing general ideas of Chomsky’s into a cognitive model for AI, and I definitely think it’s a more productive theory than you’re giving it credit for. For one, the two basic observations “basically all linguistic inference is done by procedurally merging symbols and signs” and “what separates humans from animals is the ability to introspectively index and merge symbols and signs effectively” are essential pillars of my whole paradigm — without them I wouldn’t event know where to start! I think it’s much better than some competing “grand narratives” for human sciences like Behaviorism or Postmodern Relativism, but of course it’s far from perfect and surely has discouraged some valuable work over the years. I agree that it isn’t empirical, but only because it’s a guiding idea/standpoint/perspective and not what Chomsky would call a “scientifically defined term”. UG/nativism/minimalism gradually loose or gain parsimony in relation to our body of evidence over time, but they’re not consistent or specific enough to be fundamentally proven or disproven anytime soon IMO